Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 So. 3d 313 - Barnes v. State

30 So. 3d 313 - Barnes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Davis v. United States · 440 So. 2d 297 - Groseclose v. State · 909 So. 2d 731 - Dilworth v. State

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]f the defendant invokes h[is] right to counsel, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived h[is] privilege against self-incrimination and h[is] right to retained or appointed counsel. Once a defendant asks for counsel, [he] cannot be interrogated further until counsel has been made available, unless the accused [himself] initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning.... Rather, the suspect must unambiguously request counsel. As we have observed, a statement either is such an assertion of the right to counsel or it is not.... [H]e must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. [W]e are unwilling to create a third layer of prophylaxis to prevent police questioning when the suspect might want a lawyer. Unless the suspect actually requests an attorney, questioning may continue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “During the hearing on the motion to suppress, Lewis testified that Barnes was not a suspect when he called her and asked her to come to his office for a noncustodial interview. Barnes’ interview ■ was videotaped and later transcribed. .However, Lewis testified that during the. course of the. interview, Barnes made., some. contradictory state-, ments, which are discussedfurther herein, that made her a person of interest At that point, Lewis said Barnes was given her Miranda rights and a waiver. Lewis further testified that Barnes still was not a. suspect at that point, but that he was aware that she had made contradictory statements.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.